Extradition
When a crime is committed against country A, and the criminal either commits it from country B or flees to country B, the government of country A can seek extradition of the criminal to face trial according to A's laws. This is the main way that crime is punished when borders are crossed. Most countries have many extradition treaties; for instance, the United Kingdom has over 100 extradition relations, as does the United States (45, 46).
Extradition treaties are complicated by moral questions. Some treaties have special provisions for political crimes, the possibility of the death penalty, or torture, that allow them to refuse extradition (47).
Extradition treaties have been invoked based on Internet crime. Ongoing is Richard O'Dwyer's case, a student in the United Kingdom who was charged by the United States for copyright violation by a link hosting site he built. While he has avoided extradition by agreeing to pay compensation and not violate further copyright laws, he was previously facing jail time under United States law if extradited (48).
Beyond the application of extradition treaties directly to Internet crime, extradition is an possible precedent for creating more comprehensive set of international agreements around Internet law breakers. It gives precedent both for agreeing to uphold other nations' laws, but also to refuse to do so if they violate moral principles.
Extradition treaties are complicated by moral questions. Some treaties have special provisions for political crimes, the possibility of the death penalty, or torture, that allow them to refuse extradition (47).
Extradition treaties have been invoked based on Internet crime. Ongoing is Richard O'Dwyer's case, a student in the United Kingdom who was charged by the United States for copyright violation by a link hosting site he built. While he has avoided extradition by agreeing to pay compensation and not violate further copyright laws, he was previously facing jail time under United States law if extradited (48).
Beyond the application of extradition treaties directly to Internet crime, extradition is an possible precedent for creating more comprehensive set of international agreements around Internet law breakers. It gives precedent both for agreeing to uphold other nations' laws, but also to refuse to do so if they violate moral principles.
Customs and Imports
Nations regulate the flow of goods in and out of their borders. Customs identifies and excludes illegal items, and levies taxes on other items. Import/export rules manage companies doing the same, to protect businesses, provide revenue, and ensure incoming objects are safe and legal. Standard import laws apply to Internet purchases, depending on the country (49).
Like extradition, however, customs and imports are more interesting as a metaphor for Internet regulation. Should digital content be regulated like physical content? A document, program, or media downloaded by a person in a country different from the source is analogous to a product bought and shipped from one country to another. Should there be “Internet customs” or “Internet import laws”?
Arguments for such regulation go back to the idea of upholding the laws a person is beholden to as a citizen of his country and protecting other citizens. Arguments against point to the uniqueness of digital content and the benefits of interconnectedness, unrestricted communication and sharing of ideas.
Like extradition, however, customs and imports are more interesting as a metaphor for Internet regulation. Should digital content be regulated like physical content? A document, program, or media downloaded by a person in a country different from the source is analogous to a product bought and shipped from one country to another. Should there be “Internet customs” or “Internet import laws”?
Arguments for such regulation go back to the idea of upholding the laws a person is beholden to as a citizen of his country and protecting other citizens. Arguments against point to the uniqueness of digital content and the benefits of interconnectedness, unrestricted communication and sharing of ideas.
"Moral" Intervention
Occasionally, a country decides it has the right and responsibility to interfere in another country’s activities. Justifications include a clear threat to the country’s safety, or such egregious offenses against human rights that intervention is mandatory. However, few people take kindly to being issued ultimatums to change their ways, and countries are run by people.
There is a balance between respecting other nations’ sovereignty and differing cultural frames of what is right, and protecting people no matter their nation from abuse. Any intervention in another country threatens one’s own citizens, physically, economically, ethically. Any intervention sets precedents another country can use to justify imposing their own frames. Intervention has been a difficult balance to strike throughout human history, and we tend to remember the failures and wrong decisions more strongly than the successes.
The same question exists for the Internet. When does a nation that believes strongly in the potential to share knowledge, educate, and challenge entrenched mindsets through the Internet decide to take action against censorship? The UN declared Internet access a human right in 2011 (50). At what point is it morally obligated to intervene to protect that human right?
Coming to any universally accepted agreement on Internet rights seems impossible. The United States is firmly against censorship; Russia, China, and many Arab countries would not function in their current way without it. So far, there have been no major conflicts between multiple countries over Internet rights. Within countries is a different story, as populaces rise up against censorship or restricted access. But whether the lack of international conflicts will continue is uncertain.
There is a balance between respecting other nations’ sovereignty and differing cultural frames of what is right, and protecting people no matter their nation from abuse. Any intervention in another country threatens one’s own citizens, physically, economically, ethically. Any intervention sets precedents another country can use to justify imposing their own frames. Intervention has been a difficult balance to strike throughout human history, and we tend to remember the failures and wrong decisions more strongly than the successes.
The same question exists for the Internet. When does a nation that believes strongly in the potential to share knowledge, educate, and challenge entrenched mindsets through the Internet decide to take action against censorship? The UN declared Internet access a human right in 2011 (50). At what point is it morally obligated to intervene to protect that human right?
Coming to any universally accepted agreement on Internet rights seems impossible. The United States is firmly against censorship; Russia, China, and many Arab countries would not function in their current way without it. So far, there have been no major conflicts between multiple countries over Internet rights. Within countries is a different story, as populaces rise up against censorship or restricted access. But whether the lack of international conflicts will continue is uncertain.